Response to Robert Farley from the FPM

Read his article here

And now for my response:

Being Calm is the Wrong Response

Though this article provides an interesting history of the PRC's pursuit of nuclear weapons, it does not establish a sensible argument as to why the West should "calm down" with regard to Iran's stated goal of creating a nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Farley begins his article with sarcasm and ridicule, clearly mocking the legitimate fears of what could happen should Iran posses the bomb. He follows with a leap of logic to say that because the government controlled by Ahmadinejad has made outlandish statements, therefore all Iranians are "different, weird, and threatening." This could obviously be no farther from the truth.

I would suggest that Mr. Farley read the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which it states that America (the representative of the West) plotted against Iran. The Preamble continues to delineate the manner in which the new government will be established - that is to say, the government will practice strict adherence to the laws of the Qu'ran. Now, anyone who has read the Qu'ran (as Farley clearly has NOT) knows that it states numerous times that the unbeliever must be destroyed and that a Jihad (Holy War) must be waged against those who wish to harm the believer.

Obviously, the more modern Muslim understands that the words of the Qu'ran are not to be taken literally; they are metaphorical, just as the Torah and the Bible are mostly metaphorical. However, fundamentalist Muslims - namely Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his lackey President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - interpret the Qu'ran quite literally. As such, they have both stated publicly on numerous occasions their desire to harm both Israel and America.

The concern is not what the government of Iran will do with nukes. It is fair to say that very few people believe that the state of Iran would be stupid enough to employ weapons against America, Great Britain, or pretty much any other country as that would no doubt incite a third world war. However, there is legitimate concern over the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists - such as Usama bin Laden - who may be less hesitant to use such devastating tactics.

The fear of Iran supplying terrorist groups is very real. The 9/11 commission found significant links between Iran and Al Qaeda, and it has been long known that Iran supports other groups such as Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC.

So, Mr. Farley, perhaps instead of telling the world to "calm down" through illogical arguments and exaggerations, perhaps it would be wise to educate people as to the real threat and allow countries (such as Israel) to protect themselves from a very real threat.

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

From Jake Tapper of ABC
February 26, 2009 12:00 PM

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

-- jpt

The Summit Breakouts: Social Security

The pool report by Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post on the Fiscal Responsibility Summit's breakout session on Social Security follows:

The session was held in room 350 of EEOB, a large conference room in which participants sat around a rectangular table. At the head of the table, with an American flag on each side of them, were the two administration officials who led this breakout: Lawrence Summers, director of the WH's National Economic Council, and Gene Sperling, counselor for domestic policy at Treasury. An ideological eclectic mix of 24 guests participated (a partial list follows), including senators and House members, David Walker (former head of the GAO), representatives of labor and business, and leaders of advocacy groups that work on entitlement reform.

No major news, but Summers and Sperling each conveyed a sense that the administration will try to move on health care before Social Security, although SS will come soon after.

Sperling said in his opening remarks that "Social Security does provide the potential for something that could be done, regardless of whether it is this year or next year. It is a conversation that has gone on this town, often not successfully."

But he said the president believes "there is a new politics out there." In his closing remarks, Sperling said "This is not about getting a commission. It is finding a process of trust, where Democrats and Republicans can come together and present something together, so it is not seen simply as an invitation to partisan attack...Holding hands and jumping together."

Summers said that health care has "overwhelming importance" in achieving "longterm budget control." He said: "But Social Security is also crucial to the nation's longterm fiscal health, and Social Security is our most important government program."

He essentially said - and this is paraphrase here -- that the downturn of the financial markets had diminished the political appetite for converting part of SS to private retirement accounts. Here is a quote: In light of "the events in the market the last couple years, the sense of the need for government to take a core public responsibility for Social Security. . .has been strengthened, at least in many people's minds. Though not perhaps all minds."

Sperling, near the session's end, advocated a change to Social Security that he had touted when he worked as an economics adviser in the Clinton White House: an "add-on" to Social Security, in which workers could set aside money in private accounts beyond their payroll taxes that go into the program itself. He said that politically, that idea - called USA Accounts in the Clinton days - should not be part of Social Security reform itself. But he said, "it doesn't mean it couldn't be part of a package."

Both Summers and Sperling said there would not be consensus in today's session about how to fix the program. They also said the public was more receptive to the government making hard decisions necessary to keep SS from running out of money in the long run, because Americans are anxious about their private retirement savings and the value of their houses.

Sperling said: "I think there may be a lot more openness than we thought in the past for people to have an honest discussion about the shared sacrifice necessary to have Social Security solvency. That this would be a sure thing they could count on, and they could count on for the next 50 to 75 years."

At the end, Sperling also tried to cut through disagreement over whether the program was in a state of crisis. "I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn't it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?"

Those are the highlights from the administration. By far, most of the session, which lasted slightly less than two hours, was devoted to comments from around the table.

Two Republicans, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Lindsey Graham said they were willing to work with the administration, without saying they supported any specific ideas the WH might propose. Graham said: "To this new administration, if you will push this and make it a priority, I will do everything I can to make you successful. . .I will do everything I can to make sure that demagoguery does not succeed."

Boehner said the government should consider cutting or eliminating SS benefits for older Americans with high retirement incomes. "Why don't we just admit we are broke? If you have $150,000 in non-Social Security retirement income, thanks for your contributions but phase out the benefits or eliminate them. . .I don't have any problem looking people in the eye and saying, 'Thank you for your contributions, but for the good of the country, your benefits are gone.' " He also said increases in SS payments should be pegged to the Consumer Price Index, not wage inflation. And he said "we need to get serious about raising the retirement age."

David Walker, former chief of the GAO, also said the retirement age should increase. "One think that I've heard some controversy about, the retirement age - I know it's difficult, but the simple fact of the matter is, government policy needs to encourage what is in the collective best interest of the country and what is in the collective best interest of all. Government policy needs to encourage people to work longer."

Here are most, if not all, of the participants, in order in which they spoke:
David Walker - former head of GAO.
Sen. Dick Durbin
Sen. Steny Hoyer
Rep. John Boehner
Maya MacGuinneas, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Peter Peterson, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy
John Sweeney - AFL-CIO
Roger Ferguson - TIAA-CREF
Randi Weingarten - American Federation of Teachers
Rep. John Tanner
Barbara Kennelly - National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Rep. Eric Cantor
Marty Ford - Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Susan Eckerly - NFIB
Ed Coyle - Alliance for Retired Americans
Kevin Hassitt - American Enterprise Institute

from the Washington Post

Pampering The Prisoners

Baghdad Central Prison, previously known as Abu Ghraib, was reopened today as a five-star hotel and resort for terrorists and criminals. The Iraqi government obviously feels that the best method to discourage crime is to reward those who are convicted of it by providing "greenhouses, computer chatroom, a playground, and a sewing room." With such luxuries being served, how can one afford NOT to enter into the obviously profitable and highly prestigious business of terror?

I remark on this laughable treatment of terrorists to highlight the confused mentality the world seems to have adopted towards those who wish to cause us harm; instead of punishing them with the utmost severity, the world has come to believe that it is our duty to pity them. Imagine for a moment that you are risking your life for a cause you obviously believe very deeply in. The ultimate sacrifice for this cause is your life and the honor that will be bestowed upon you after death is something you can only dream of. The enemy against whom you fight is heavily armed and exceedingly wealthy. They have sought you out and persecuted your people for years, and despite your many attempts they continue to persist in their nonreligious ways. Now, they have managed to catch you; you who have spent your entire life trying to kill these people for mocking your god.

It is reasonable that the terrorist, being caught and convicted, should expect to be treated with the utmost harshness, perhaps even being punished by being put to death. However, instead of even slapping these people on the wrist, the Iraqi government has determined to make fools and laughing-stocks out of themselves by investing over $1 million in providing lofty and comfortable accommodations for monsters, murderers and the scum of the earth.

The terrorist is not feeling punished and the comfortable conditions will not serve to rehabilitate any of those detained, for these are not ordinary criminals convicted of robbery or grand-theft auto. No, these prisoners are radical fundamentalists who believe in their cause enough to die for it. Providing them with five-star conditions merely eases the difficulty of what should be made an impossible task - the killing and harming of innocent civilians.

"We turned it into something like a resort, not a prison."

- Mohammed al-Zeidi, director of the Iraqi Rehabilitation Department

Backing Away From Burris

DURBIN STATEMENT ON SENATOR ROLAND BURRIS

"When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to meet two requirements - first, that he submit the proper paperwork certifying his appointment, and second, that he appear before the General Assembly's Impeachment Committee to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment."

"We asked him to testify in the impeachment proceedings, not to embarrass Roland Burris, but to give him an opportunity to clear the air regarding this appointment from a tainted governor. Our hope was that he would use that opportunity to assure the people of Illinois and the other members of the United States Senate that he was not involved in any wrongdoing."

"Now the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into serious question. Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients. This was not the full disclosure under oath that we asked for."

"These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully."

"The State's Attorney in Sangamon County is reviewing the affidavit and other materials associated with Senator Burris' testimony to see if criminal charges are warranted and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation into this matter."

"This is the appropriate course of action and I await the outcome of those investigations. The people of Illinois deserve nothing less."

John Adams on Religion

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Do We Get To Read It???